Jharkhand High Court
Akanksha Kumari vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Chief … on 15 May, 2026
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
2026:JHHC:15323
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 4597 of 2025
.........
1. Akanksha Kumari, aged about 27 years, D/O
Anand Raj, Resident of Village: Nawadih, P.O.
Behradih, P.S. Domchanch and District Koderma.
2. Arti Verma, aged about 37 years, W/O Sudhir
Kumar Swarnkar, Resident of Village: Bastacolla
(Sonar Basti), P.O: Dhansar, P.S: Jhariya and District:
Dhanbad.
3. Khushbu Kumari, aged about 37 years, W/O Jai
Prakash Nirala, Resident of Village: 44, Degwa Tola,
Lari, Near Panchayat Bhawan, P.O: Lari Kalan, P.S:
Rajrappa and District: Ramgarh.
4. Deepika Deep, aged about 32 years D/O
Deonarayan Ram, Resident of Village: Dari, P.O: Dari,
P.S: Giddi(A) and District: Hazaribagh.
5. Kanchan Kumari, aged about 37 years, W/O
Krishna Murari Turi, Resident of Village:
Mendhochaprkho, P.O: Lataki, P.S: Jamua and
District: Giridih.
6. Tanu Priya, aged about 27 years, D/O Shankar
Mahto, Resident of Village: Datma More Kuju, P.O:
Kuju, P.S: Mandu and District: Ramgarh.
7. Laxmi Kumari, aged about26 years, D/O Arun
Kumar Mehta, Resident of Village: Kadwa, P.O: Kewal,
P.S: Barhi and District: Hazaribagh.
8. Pallawi Kumari, aged about 27 years, D/O Ranvijay
Prasad Mehta, Resident of Village: Gunja, P.O: Ichak,
P.S: Ichak and District: Hazaribagh.
9. Sitara Kumari, aged about 26 years, D/O Koushal
Kumar Mehta, Resident of Village: Gunja, P.O: Ichak,
P.S: Ichak and District: Hazaribagh.
10. Sangita Kumari, aged about 33 years, D/O
Sudarshan Ram, Resident of Village: Satahe, P.O:
Patan, P.S: Patan and District: Palamu.
11. Anamika Kumari, aged about 29 years, D/O
Rajendra Nayak, Resident of Village: Tandwa, P.O:
Tandwa, P.S: Tandwa and District: Chatra.
12. Pushpa Kumari, aged about 43 years, W/O Ajit
Kumar Choudhary, Resident of Village: Kadma Market
1
2026:JHHC:15323
Farm Area, P.O: Jamshedpur, P.S: Kadma and
District: East Singhbhum.
13. Bhawna Supriya, aged about27 years, D/O Yadu
Nath Mahto, Resident of Village: Khalari, P.O:
Ajaigarh, P.S: Silli and District: Ranchi.
14. Anuja Lakra, aged about 29 years, D/O
Parmeshwar Bhagat, Resident of Village: Dunduria
Lohardaga Road, P.O: Gumla, P.S: Gumla and District:
Gumla.
15. Sunita Kumari, aged about 36 years, D/O
Maneshwar Baraik, Resident of Village: Ghaghra, P.O:
Ghaghra, P.S: Ghaghra and District: Gumla.
16. Manisha Kumari, aged about 28 years, W/O
Rajkiran Jaiswal, Resident of Village: Mahagama, P.O:
Mahagama, P.S: Mahagama and District: Godda.
17. Krity Agrawal, aged about 29 years, D/O Sheo
Prasad Agrawal, Resident of Village: Dibha Mohalla,
P.O: Chatra, P.S: Chatra and District: Chatra.
18. Bindu Kumari Ray, aged about 30 years, W/O
Bhagirath Kumar Ray, Resident of Village: Dakai, P.O:
Manigarhi, P.S: Sarwan Dakai and District: Deoghar.
19. Rekha Devi, aged about 36 years, W/O Sukhdev
Prasad, Resident of Village: Chedra, P.O: Bishnugarh,
P.S: Bishnugarh and District: Hazaribagh.
20. Sadhna Kumari, aged about 28 years, W/O Rajiv
Ranjan, Resident of Village: Kumhari, P.O: Narchahi,
P.S: Mayurhand, and District: Chatra.
21. Menka Kumari, aged about 31 years, C/O
Chandan Choudhari, Resident of Village: Jabra, P.O:
Jabra, P.S: Simariya and District: Chatra.
22.Anima Ebha Minj, aged about 35 years, D/O
Joachim Minj, Resident of Village: Q.No. DS-1-146-A
Railway Colony, P.O: B.S.City-10 Radhanagar, P.S:
Balidih and District: Bokaro.
23. Bulli Rani Marandi, aged about 33 years, W/O
Sandeep Hembrom, Resident of Village: Panibaswa,
P.O: Machhali, P.S: Bhelwaghati Deori and District:
Giridih.
24. Sudha Kumari, aged about 28 years, D/O Wakil
Prasad Mehta, Resident of Village: Churchu, P.O:
Sindur, P.S: Korra and District: Hazaribagh.
2
2026:JHHC:15323
25. Anita Kumari, aged about 30 years, D/O
Dhananjay Pramanik, Resident of Village: Tata Sijua
12 No Basti Kapuria, P.O: Bhelatand, P.S: Jogta and
District: Dhanbad.
26. Neha Kumari, aged about 27 years, D/O Suphal
Ram Rajwar, Resident of Village: Tand Balidih, P.O:
Jainamore, P.S: Jaridih and District: Bokaro.
27. Anuja Kumari, aged about 25 years, D/O Sunil
Kumar Dubey, Resident of Village: Salhana, P.O:
Kutmu, P.S: Pandu and District: Palamu.
28. Puja Kumari, aged about 27 years D/O Sunil
Kumar Dubey, Resident of Village: Salhana, P.O:
Kutmu, P.S: Pandu and District: Palamu.
29. Bandana Kumari, aged about 44 years, W/O Vijay
Kumar, Resident of Village: Ward 1 Rakhwan, P.O:
Jamtara, P.S: Jamtara, and District: Jamtara.
30. Ranjeeta Kumari, aged about 40 years, W/O
Ranjeet Kumar Vimal, Resident of Village: Jogidih,
P.O: Nandudih, P.S: Satgawan and District: Koderma.
31. Nushrat Bano, aged about 41 years, Wife of Md.
Rahbar Alam, Resident of Kurmitand, Brahmandiha,
P.O., P.S. Dhanbad & District Dhanbad.
32. Shazada Parween, aged about 34 years, Daughter
of Shamsuddin Ansari, Resident of Singhdih, P.O.
Gomo, P.S. Gomo & District Dhanbad.
33. Raginee Kumari, aged about 28 years, Daughter of
Kunj Bihari Mishra, Resident of Village Majhigawan,
P.O., P.S. Manjhigawan & District Jamshedpur.
…. Petitioners
VERSUS
1. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary,
having it office at Karamtoli, Morabadi, P.O., P.S.
Morabadi & District Ranchi.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Women,
Child Development and Social Security, Government of
Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan,
Dhurwa, P.O., P.S. Dhurwa & District Ranchi.
3. The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission
through its Chairman, having its office at Kali Nagar,
Chai Bagan, P.O., P.S. Namkum & District – Ranchi,
Jharkhand
3
2026:JHHC:15323
4. The Secretary, Jharkhand Staff Selection
Commission, having its office at Kali Nagar, Chai
Bagan, P.O., P.S. Namkum & District – Ranchi,
Jharkhand.
5. The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Staff
Selection Commission, having its office at Kali Nagar,
Chai Bagan, P.O., P.S. Namkum & District – Ranchi,
Jharkhand. ….. Respondent(s)
with
W.P.(S) No. 5736 of 2025
………
Sindhu Kumari, aged about 34 years, Daughter of
Damoder Pandey, Resident of Village Sundipur, P.O.
Sundipur, Kandi & District Garhwa.
…. Petitioners
VERSUS
1. The State of Jnarkhand through Chief Secretary,
having it office at Karamtoli, Morabadi, P.O., P.S.
Morabadi & District-Ranchi.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Women,
Child Development and Social Security, Government of
Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan,
Dhurwa, P.O., P.S. Dhurwa & District Ranchi.
3. The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission
through its Chairman, having its office at Kali Nagar,
Chai Bagan, P.O., P.S. Namkum & District — Ranchi,
Jharkhand
4. The Secretary, Jharkhand Staff Selection
Commission, having its office at Kali Nagar, Chai
Bagan, P.O., P.S. Namkum & District – Ranchi,
Jharkhand
5. The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Staff
Selection Commission, having its office at Kali Nagar,
Chai Bagan, P.O., P.S. Namkum & District – Ranchi,
Jharkhand. ….. Respondent(s)
with
W.P.(S) No. 5252 of 2025
………
1. Vibha Kumari, aged about 28 years, Daughter of
Jagdish Yadav, Resident of Village Karso, P.O., P.S.
Barhi & District Hazaribagh.
4
2026:JHHC:15323
2. Anupa Kumari, aged about 28 years, Daughter of
Rajdev Yadav, Resident of Village Mahuwagarah, P.O.
Makatpur, P.S. Jainagar & District Koderma.
3. Purnima Kumari, aged about 41 years, Daughter
of Prasad Mahto, Resident of Jai Prabha Nager,
Barkahaon Road, P.O., P.S. Sadar & District
Hazaribagh. …. Petitioners
VERSUS
1. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary,
having it office at 1st Floor, Project Building, Dhurwa,
P.O., P.S. Dhurwa & District Ranchi.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Women,
Child Development and Social Security, Government of
Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan,
Dhurwa, P.O., P.S. Dhurwa & District Ranchi.
3. The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through
its Chairman, having its office at Kali Nagar, Chai
Bagan, P.O., P.S. Namkum & District – Ranchi,
Jharkhand
4. The Secretary, Jharkhand Staff Selection
Commission, having its office at Kali Nagar, Chai
Bagan, P.O., P.S. Namkum & District-Ranchi,
Jharkhand
5. The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Staff
Selection Commission, having its office at Kali Nagar,
Chai Bagan, P.O., P.S. Namkum & District-Ranchi,
Jharkhand. ….. Respondent(s)
with
W.P.(S) No. 4703 of 2025
………
1. Anju Kumari, aged about 39 years, W/o Hari
Shankar Kumar, R/o 377 Vidyapuri, P.O. Jhumri
Telaiya, P.S. Telaiya and District Koderma.
2. Sushila Kumari, aged about 41 years, D/o Suresh
Lal Barnwal, R/o Adarsh Nagar, Near Cooperative
Colony, NH 33, P.Ο. Hazaribagh, P.S. Bishnugarh and
District – Hazaribagh.
3. Madhuri Kumari, aged about 34 years, W/o Dinesh
Kumar Tiwari, R/o Village Rajogari, P.O. Lesligang,
P.S. Lesligang and District Palamau.
5
2026:JHHC:15323
4. Shobha Kumari, aged about 35 years, D/o Radha
Kant Mehra, R/o Village Lougain, P.O. Lougain, P.S.
Pathargama and District Godda.
5. Shweta Soren, aged about 31 years, D/o Mehilal
Manjhi, R/o Village Chainpur, P.O. Chainpur, P.S.
Charhi and District Hazaribagh.
6. Suchita Kumari, aged about 38 years, W/o Arvind
Ram, R/o Village Resuaa, P.O., P.S. Manjhiaon and
District Garhwa.
7. Sarita Murmu, aged about 33 years, W/o Binod
Hembrom, R/o Village Gangta Govindpur, P.O. Motia,
P.S. Godda & District -Godda.
8. Biva Kumari, aged about 42 years, D/o Devendra
Nath Jha, R/o Dev kunj, Mohalla Saket Puri, P.O.,
P.S. & District Godda.
9. Ravina Rani, aged about 40 years, D/o Jay Narayan
Sah, R/o Namaste Road, Borio Bazar, P.O., P.S. Borio
and District Sahebganj. …. Petitioners
VERSUS
1. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary,
having it office at Karamtoli, Morabadi, P.O., P.S.
Morabadi & District Ranchi.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Women,
Child Development and Social Security, Government of
Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan,
Dhurwa, P.O., P.S. Dhurwa & District Ranchi.
3. The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through
its Chairman, having its office at Kali Nagar, Chai
Bagan, P.O., P.S. Namkum & District Ranchi,
Jharkhand
4. The Secretary, Jharkhand Staff Selection
Commission, having its office at Kali Nagar, Chai
Bagan, P.O., P.S. Namkum & District Ranchi,
Jharkhand.
5. The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Staff
Selection Commission, having its office at Kali Nagar,
Chai Bagan, P.O., P.S. Namkum & District Ranchi,
Jharkhand. ….. Respondent(s)
with
W.P.(S) No. 6193 of 2025
………
6
2026:JHHC:15323
1. Arti Pandey, aged about 35 years, Daughter of
Chandra Shekhar Pandey, Resident of Village
Asanbani, P.O. Asanbani, P.S. Ranishwan, District –
Dumka, Jharkhand -816118.
2. Punita, aged about 47 years, Daughter of Ram
Krishna Prasad, Wife of Amit Kumar Sinha, Resident
of at Hari Om General Store Near Vandana Nurshing
Home, Tower Colony, Main Road, Shivpuri, Hazaribag,
P.O. & P.S. -Hazaribag, District – Hazaribag,
Jharkhand – 825402. …. Petitioners
VERSUS
1. State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary,
Government of Jharkhand, having office at Project
Building, Dhurwa, P.O. – Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur,
Ranchi.
2. Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative
Reforms and Rajbhasa, Govt. of Jharkhand, having
office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.
Jagarnathpur, Ranchi.
3. Secretary, Department of Women Child
Development & Social Security, Government of
Jharkhand, having office at Project Building, Dhurwa,
P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, Ranchi.
4. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, through its
Secretary, having its office at Chaibagan Gali, Kali
Nagar, P.O. & P.S. – Namkum, Ranchi.
5. Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Staff
Selection Commission, having its office at Chaibagan
Gali, Kali Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, Ranchi.
….. Respondent(s)
with
W.P.(S) No. 4667 of 2025
………
1. Rupa Kumari, aged about 35 years, Wife of Rahul
Kumar, Resident of at 710, Bhuchungdih Road,
Jainamore, Bandhdih, P.O.-Bandhdih, P.S. Jaridih,
District Bokaro, Jharkhand – 829301.
2. Monika Kumari, aged about 33 years, Daughter of
Rajendra Singh, Resident of Tara Nagar, P.O. & P.S.
Chas, District -Bokaro, Jharkhand – 827013.
7
2026:JHHC:15323
3. Gitanjali Verma, aged about 32 years, Daughter of
Dilip Verma, Resident of Opposite Galaxia Mall, Kali
Mandir Gali, Sukhdeo Nagar, Ratu Road, P.O. & P.S.-
Sukhdeonagar, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand – 834005.
4. Sangita Rani Gupta, aged about 41 years, Wife of
Manoj Kumar Gupta, Daughter of Ashok Kumar Sahu,
Resident of Makatpur P.O.-Makatpur, P.S.-Giridih,
Jharkhand-815301.
5. Deepa Kumari, aged about 31 years, Daughter of
Bhola Mahato, Resident of Village – Parasia, P.O.
Kusunda, P.S. -Putki, District – Dhanbad, Jharkhand-
828116.
6. Pinky Kumari, aged about 28 years, Daughter of
Dinesh Mahto, Resident of Village Nutandih, P.O.
Tupkadih P.S. – Jaridih, District Bokaro, Jharkhand-
827010.
7 Swati Kumari, aged about 24 years, Daughter of
Kuleshwar Saw, Resident of Village Banji, Barughutu,
Uttari, Banji, P.O.- Banji, P.S. Mandu, District –
Ramgarh, Jharkhand 825314.
8. Aparna Singh, aged about 45 years, Wife of
Siteshwar Singh, Resident of Village – Surju Gadi, P.O.
Gadi Nawdiha, P.S. Jamua, District – Giridih,
Jharkhand-815312.
9. Amirun Nisha, aged about 33 years, Wife of Md.
Anwarul Ansari, Resident of Village Jamni Paharpur,
P.O. Jamni Paharpur, P.S.-Godda, District-Godda,
Jharkhand-814133. …. Petitioners
VERSUS
1. State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary,
Government of Jharkhand, having office at Project
Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur,
Ranchi.
2. Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative
Reforms and Rajbhasa, Govt. of Jharkhand, having
office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Ranchi.
Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur,
3. Secretary, Department of Women Child
Development & Social Security, Government of
Jharkhand, having office at P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Project
Building, Dhurwa, Jagarnathpur, Ranchi.
8
2026:JHHC:15323
4. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, through its
Secretary, having its office at Chaibagan Gali, Kali
Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, Ranchi.
5. Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Staff
Selection Commission, having its office at Chaibagan
Gali, Kali Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Namkum, Ranchi.
….. Respondent(s)
With
W.P.(S) No. 7248 of 2025
………
1. Deepmala, aged about 30 years, Daughter of
Pradeep Kumar Agrawal, Resident of Village-Tarabad,
P.O.+P.S. Rikhiya, District-Deoghar, Jharkhand.
…. Petitioners
VERSUS
1. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary,
having its office at Karamtoli, Morahbadi, P.O. & P.S.
Morahbadi, District-Ranchi.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Women,
Child Development and Social Security, Government of
Jharkhand Ranchi At: Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.
Dhurwa, District-Ranchi.
3. The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission,
through its Chairman, having its office at Kali Nagar,
CHaibagan, P.O. & P.S. Namkom, District-Ranchi.
4. The Secretary, Jharkhand Staff Selection
Commission, through its Chairman, having its office at
Kali Nagar, CHaibagan, P.O. & P.S. Namkom, District-
Ranchi.
5. The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Staff
Selection Commission, through its Chairman having
its office at Kali Nagar, Chaibagan, P.O. & P.S.
Namkom, District-Ranchi. ….. Respondent(s)
with
W.P.(S) No. 5622 of 2025
………
1. Sana Fatma, Aged About 32 Years, D/O:
Mohammad Arman, R/O: Arman Manzil, Dangal Para,
Dumka, P.O+P.S- Dumka, District: Dumka,
Jharkhand-814101.
9
2026:JHHC:15323
2. Nisha Kumari, Aged about 29 years, D/O: Sunil
Kumar, R/O: Tungaon, P.O- Jurdag, P.S- Karra
Jurdag, District: Khunti, Jharkhand-835210
3. Pushpa Kumari, Aged about 25 years, D/O: Prem
Mahatha, R/O: Kamaldih, P.O- Narayanpur, P.S-
Narayanpur, District Bokaro, Jharkhand-827013
4. Sonam Kumari, Aged about 35 years, D/O:
Rajendra Prasad Saw, R/O: Panchayat Kharagdiha
Block Jamua, village-Kharagdiha post Kharagdiha,
P.O- Kharagdiha, P.S- Jamua Khariodih, District:
Deori Giridih, Jharkhand-815314
…. Petitioners
VERSUS
The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary,
Government of Jharkhand, Having Office At Project
Building, Dhurwa, P.O.& P.S.- Dhurwa, District
Ranchi.
2) The Principal Secretary, Personnel, Administrative
Reforms and Rajbhasa Department, Govt. Of
Jharkhand, Having Its Office At Project Building,
Dhurwa, P.O- Dhurwa, P.S Jagarnnathpur, District-
Ranchi.
3) The Secretary, Department of School Education &
Literacy, Government of Jharkhand, Having Its Office
at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & Dhurwa, District
Jharkhand. Ranchi,
4) The Secretary, Jharkhand staff Selection
Commission, Having its Office at Kalinagar Chaibagan,
P.O& P.S Namkum, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
5) Controller of examination, Jharkhand staff selection
commission, having its office at kalinagar chaibagan,
P.O & P.S- Namkum, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
….. Respondent(s)
W.P.(S) No. 5290 of 2025
………
1. Laxmi Kumari, aged about 30 years, D/o Raju
Mahto, R/o House No 32 U, Panderpala Mahto Tola,
Bishunpur, P.O. B.Polytechnic, P.S. Bank More &
District- Dhanbad.
10
2026:JHHC:15323
2. Sahin Khatun, aged about 27 years, D/o Md Sarfraj
Khan, R/o Village Barkatha, P.O., P.S. Barkatha &
District-Hazaribagh.
3. Manila Kujur, aged about 29 years, D/o Sukra
Oraon, R/o Khuti Toli, Sons, P.O. Mandar, P.S.
Chanho & District-Ranchi.
4. Soumya Kumari, aged about 28 years, D/o
Satyendra Prasad Yadav, R/o Village Ghagri, P.O.
Birbal, P.S. Dhurki & District-Garhwa.
…. Petitioners
VERSUS
1. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary,
having it office at 1st Floor, Project Building, Dhurwa,
P.O., P.S. Dhurwa & District-Ranchi
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Women,
Child Development and Social Security, Government of
Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan,
Dhurwa, P.O., P.S. Dhurwa & District Ranchi.
3. The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through
its Chairman, having its office at Kali Nagar, Chai
Bagan, P.O., P.S. Namkum & District – Ranchi,
Jharkhand
4. The Secretary, Jharkhand Staff Selection
Commission, having its office at Kali Nagar, Chai
Bagan, P.O., P.S. Namkum & District Ranchi,
Jharkhand.
5. The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Staff
Selection Commission, having its office at Kali Nagar,
Chai Bagan, P.O., P.S. Namkum & District – Ranchi,
Jharkhand. ….. Respondent(s)
with
W.P.(S) No. 6515 of 2025
………
Rina Kumari, aged about 43 years, D/O Shambhu
Nath Tiwari, Resident of Village: Chiyanki, P.O.
Chiyanki, P.S. Medininagar, District Palamu,
Jharkhand. …. Petitioners
VERSUS
1. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary,
having it office at Karamtoli, Morabadi, P.O., P.S.
Morabadi & District Ranchi.
11
2026:JHHC:15323
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Women,
Child Development and Social Security, Government of
Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan,
Dhurwa, P.O., P.S. Dhurwa & District Ranchi.
3. The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through
its Chairman, having its office at Kali Nagar, Chai
Bagan, P.O., P.S. Namkum & District – Ranchi,
Jharkhand
4. The Secretary, Jharkhand Staff Selection
Commission, having its office at Kali Nagar, Chai
Bagan, P.O., P.S. Namkum & District – Ranchi,
Jharkhand
5. The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Staff
Selection Commission, having its office at Kali Nagar,
Chai Bagan, P.O., P.S. Namkum & District – Ranchi,
Jharkhand. ….. Respondent(s)
………
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
…….
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajit Kumar Sr. Advocate
Ms. Aparajita Bhardwaj, Advocate
Mr. Akash Ajit Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Anuj Kr. Trivedi, Advocate
Ms. Soniya Hansda, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Sonal Tiwary, A.C. to A.G.
Mr. Rahul Saboo, G.P.-II
Mr. Kunal Chandra Suman, A.C. to G.P.-II
Mr. Rishabh Kaushal, A.C. to G.P.-II
For the JSSC : M/s. Sanjoy Piprawall, Prince Kumar,
Rakesh Ranjan, Jay Prakash, Advocates
Mr. Pravin Kumar Pandey, Advocate
………
C.A.V. ON: 29/04/2026 PRONOUNCED ON:15/05/2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioners in the present batch of writ petitions
have approached this Court with common grievances,
thus all matters have been taken up together with the
consent of the parties.
3. The issue raised in these batch matters is that the
petitioners had applied for appointment to the post of
Lady Supervisor in pursuance of Advertisement No.
14/2023 and they do possess the prescribed qualification
12
2026:JHHC:15323
as per the Jharkhand Child Development Non-Gazetted
Employees (Lady Supervisor) Service Cadre (Appointment,
Promotion and Service Conditions) Rules, 2019
(hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 2019) and the
Jharkhand Child Development Non-Gazetted Employees
(Lady Supervisor) Service Cadre (Appointment, Promotion
and Service Conditions) Rules, (Amendment) Rules, 2021
(hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 2021) i.e.
Graduation with any one of the three subjects i.e.
Sociology or Psychology or Home Science from a
recognized University. For brevity, the facts of W.P.(S) No.
4597 of 2025 is referred.
4. It is the case of the Petitioners that they were duly
permitted to participate in the recruitment process and
appear at the competitive examination. The Petitioners
were also declared as successful as per merit and
thereafter they were called for documents verification but
their candidature has been arbitrarily rejected on the
ground of not studying the subject for all three years,
even though such requirement was never mentioned
either in the Recruitment Rules or even in the
Advertisement.
5. Mr. Ajit Kumar, Ld. Sr. Counsel representing the
respective petitioners in these batch of writ petitions has
led the arguments. He has informed the Court that when
the matter was first taken up 28.08.2026 an issue was
raised by this Court as to whether the reservation of
100% of the posts only for women was a permissible
constitutional exercise and thereafter the matter was
referred to the Division Bench vide order dated
19.12.2025. Accordingly, the matters were placed before
the Division Bench and vide order dated 19.03.2026
13
2026:JHHC:15323
which was pronounced on 24.03.2026, the Division
Bench has held that the provision of reserving 100%
posts of Supervisors for females is not violative of Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and thereafter
these petitions were returned to the learned Single Judge
for a decision on the issues raised by the petitioners
regarding their exclusion from consideration for the posts
of Lady Supervisors.
6. Ld. Sr. Counsel has initially drawn attention of this
Court towards the Rules, 2019 which lays down the
procedure for appointment to the post of Lady
Supervisor. The relevant provision regarding eligibility
criteria for appointment to the post of Lady Supervisor
has been provided under Rule 9 (ka) which is as follows:
मिहला पयवेि का – कुल वीकृत पद के 75% पद पर िनयुि हेतु िकसी मा यता ा
िव िव ालय से समाज शा या मनोिव ान या गृह िव ान या बाल िवकास िवषय के साथ
मिहला नातक; which means that the applicant has to possess
Graduation degree with Sociology or Psychology or Home
Science or child development subjects from a recognized
University. Thereafter, the Rules of 2019 was amended
vide notification dated 29.11.2021 whereby Rule 9 (ka)
has been amended as: मिहला पयवेि का – कुल वीकृत पद के 75% पद
पर िनयुि हेतु िकसी मा यता ा िव िव ालय से समाज शा या मनोिव ान या गहृ िव ान
िवषय के साथ मिहला नातक, which means that the applicant has
to possess Graduation degree with Sociology or
Psychology or Home Science from a recognized
University.
7. Ld. Sr. Counsel further argued that an
Advertisement No. 14/2023 was published by JSSC on
09.09.2023 for filling 444 posts of Lady Supervisor.
Clause 5 of the said advertisement provides for eligibility
14
2026:JHHC:15323
criteria which is: “मा यता ा िव िव ालय से समाजशा या मनोिव ान या गृह
िव ान म नातक मिहला।”. Thus, neither in the Recruitment
Rules; nor in the advertisement, it has been stipulated
that the aforementioned subjects have to be studied in all
the three years of graduation.
8. He further argued and has drawn attention of this
Court to Annexure-3 (Series) of the writ petition and
Annexure-S.A.-3 (Series) to the supplementary affidavit
dated 19.08.2025 filed on behalf of the petitioners to
demonstrate that all the petitioners are duly qualified as
per the applicable rules i.e. Rules of 2019 and 2021 and
have graduated with the subjects as per the Recruitment
Rules.
9. Ld. Sr. Counsel while putting emphasis upon the
Rules of 2019 (Annexure-1) and the amended Rules of
2021 (Annexure-1/1) argued that the relevant conditions
as contained in Rule 9 or the amended Rule 9 never
mentioned that a candidate has to be an ‘Honors
Graduate’ or ‘three years Graduate’ in a particular
subject/subjects; rather the requirement had been of
‘Graduation with the Sociology or Psychology or Home
Science’ and there was no mention of the years of
Graduation or Honors etc. It has been argued that all the
petitioners are fulfilling the condition of being a Graduate
with the above-named subjects and therefore the ground
on which their candidature has been rejected is uncalled
for, illegal and thoroughly arbitrary.
10. It has been further argued that the petitioners have
all participated in the recruitment process and they have
even qualified on merit in the competitive examination
and were called for document verification vide Important
Notice dated 27.05.2025 which is annexed as Annexure-5
15
2026:JHHC:15323
of the writ petition. After shortlisting the petitioners on
the basis of merit, the respondent JSSC has raised
objection to the educational qualification of the
petitioners vide Annexure-6 (Series) to the writ petition
and Annexure-S.A.-1 (Series) to the Supplementary
Affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners stating that they
have not studied in the subject in the Graduation for
three years.
11. Learned Senior Counsel has further argued that
though in the impugned rejection orders the respondents
have taken the above referred plea of not having studied
in the relevant subject for three years but however in the
counter affidavit and in the arguments of the
respondents a new plea has been taken that the
petitioners were required to have ‘Graduation in the
relevant subject’ as per Clause 5 of the advertisement but
the petitioners are not fulfilling that condition.
12. With respect to the grounds taken in the impugned
notices containing objections with respect to qualification
of the petitioners (Annexure-6 Series) to the writ petition
and Annexure-S.A.-3 (Series) to the Supplementary
Affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners, it has been
argued on behalf of the petitioners that studying the
subjects for 3 years was not conditioned and prescribed
either in the Rules of 2019, or amended Rules of 2021
nor even in the advertisement and thus the respondent
JSSC cannot justify the impugned objections and thereby
non-consideration of the petitioners for appointment to
the advertised posts is wrongful and illegal.
13. With respect to above referred new grounds as taken
in the Counter Affidavit or in the arguments advanced on
behalf of the respondents, while referring to the
16
2026:JHHC:15323
judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohinder
Singh Gill vs Chief Election Commissioner reported in
(1978) 1 SCC 405, Ld. Sr. Counsel has contended that
the Counter Affidavit cannot improve upon what is
contained in the impugned notices/orders which never
contains such grounds which are now being taken
through the Counter Affidavit or in the arguments of the
respondents.
14. Mr. Kumar has further argued that in the Counter
Affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents dated
15.09.2025 reliance has been placed on the Rules of
2019 (Annexure-1) and Amended Rules of 2021
(Annexure-1/1) and the respondents have knowingly not
made any reference of the further amended Rules of the
year 2023 which was otherwise also challenged on behalf
of the petitioners as having not gazetted in the Official
Gazette of Jharkhand.
15. Ld. Sr. Advocate has argued that the language and
wordings of the applicable Rules i.e. 2019 Rules or
Amended Rules of 2021 very much mentions that a
candidate should be a women Graduate from any
recognized University with Sociology or Psychology or
Home Science but it nowhere mentions a candidate has
to be Honors Graduate or must have studied in a subject
for any number of years. On the basis of the said Rules of
2019 or 2021, he contended that in both the Rules, the
word ‘with’ the subjects was mentioned but however the
respondent JSSC while issuing the Advertisement No.
14/2023 used the word ‘in’ the subjects and thereby a
different argument altogether is being advanced from the
side of the respondents which cannot be accepted firstly
because the applicable Rules never used such
17
2026:JHHC:15323
connotation or word i.e. ‘in’ the subjects and it was
rather ‘with’ the subjects and Secondly, even if the
respondents may attempt to get support from the alleged
Rules of 2023, the same cannot be permitted because the
said Rules of 2023 have been published in the Official
Gazette only on 18.03.2026.
16. Mr. Kumar has also pointed out that the writ
petitioners had in their rejoinder to their Counter
Affidavit filed way back in October, 2025 very
categorically pleaded about non-publication and non-
gazette of the relevant Rules of 2023 and only thereafter
very recently in the year 2026, the respondents have
tried to cover up their fault and thus they cannot be
allowed to take advantage of Rules published/gazetted in
the year 2026 to justify the conditions mentioned in the
Advertisement No. 14/2023.
17. Ld. Sr. Counsel reiterated that when the applicable
rules used the words ‘with the subjects’, mere mention of
the words ‘in the subjects’ in the advertisement will not
make much difference and the candidature of the
Petitioners cannot be rejected because the Rules shall
prevail as per the law of the land. Even if the condition of
qualification, having not mentioned the words like
‘Honours’ or ‘number of years of study in subject’ etc. is
said to be ambiguous in view of the law laid down in
Parvaiz Ahmed Parry vs State of Jammu & Kashmir
reported in (2015) 17 SCC 709. Reliance has placed on
para 15 of the said Judgement wherein the Hon’ble Apex
Court has held that if there in any ambiguity or
vagueness noticed in prescribing the qualification in the
advertisement, then it should be clarified in the
advertisement itself and if it has not been clarified then
18
2026:JHHC:15323
the benefit should be given to the candidates.
18. Ld. Sr. Counsel strenuously argued that the
Respondents may not be allowed to take any advantage
from the amendment made in the Rules of 2023 because
the same also never requires ‘Honours in any subject’ or
‘required number of years of study in any subject’,
Moreover the said rules have been published in the
official gazette only on 18.03.2026 and therefore as per
the law of the land, the Rules of 2023 becomes effective
only from its date of publication in the official gazette.
Reliance have been placed on a recent judgement of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in Viraj Impex Private
Limited vs Union of India & Anr reported in 2026
INSC 80 to support the legal point raised by the Senior
Counsel.
19. Mr. Amritansh Vats, Mr. Chanchal Jain, Ms.
Aprajita Bhardwaj and Mrs. Tanya Singh learned
Advocates who are appearing in the connected matters
listed today along with this case have adopted the
arguments advanced by the Ld. Sr. Counsel and have
asserted that the Petitioners of their cases also stand on
similar footing and all the Petitioners are Graduates with
the required subject.
20. Per contra, while opposing the prayers made in the
writ petitions, Mr. Sanjay Piparwal appearing for the
respondent JSSC as well as the learned counsel
appearing for the State have sought to justify the
objections raised with respect to the petitioners in
Annexure 6 (series) and likewise and have contended that
the petitioners are required to have studied in the
respective subject for three years. Upon court’s asking as
to whether such stipulation can be deciphered from the
19
2026:JHHC:15323
provisions as contained in the applicable rules, they have
contended that the provisions as contained in Rule 9 is
no doubt plain in language but the intent is clear.
21. Learned counsels appearing for the respondents
have also sought to rely upon and referred to the
Jharkhand Child Development Non-Gazetted Employees
(Lady Supervisor) Service Cadre (Appointment, Promotion
and Service Conditions) (Amendment) Rules, 2023 to put
emphasis that in the said Amended Rules of 2023, the
eligibility criteria has been amended as “मा यता ा िव िव ालय
से समाजशा या मनोिव ान या गृह िव ान म नातक मिहला।”, which means
that the applicant should possess Graduation degree in
Sociology, Psychology or Home Science from a recognized
institution and they must have studied in any of those
subjects for three year.
22. It is the contention made on behalf of the
respondents that since the petitioners had not studied
the aforesaid subjects in all three years of graduation,
their candidature has been rightly rejected.
23. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent JSSC
has further relied on the judgement rendered by the
Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 489 of 2023
(Gita Kumari & Ors. vs State of Jharkhand & Ors) to
contend that similar qualification had been prescribed for
appointment to the post of Graduate Trained Teacher
and the Division Bench has held that Graduation degree
with the subject as an optional/subsidiary subject and
not the main/core subject does not fulfil the educational
qualification requirement.
24. In his rejoinder arguments, Mr. Ajit Kumar, has
sought to distinguish the judgement of this Court in
L.P.A. No. 489 of 2023 and has contended that in the said
20
2026:JHHC:15323
case as well as in other similar cases decided by this
Court, different rules were in consideration before the
Court and the appointments had to be made on the post
of Graduate Trained Teacher or Teacher. In those set of
cases, the writ petitioners were seeking appointment on
the post of Language/Sanskrit teacher but had studied
the Language subject as MIL/Modern Indian Language
(compulsory) paper or Sanskrit as subsidiary paper.
Mr. Kumar has further pointed out that the
eligibility conditions in the Advertisements in question
before this Court in those cases had been different and
obviously the eligibility requirements for a specialized
post like that of a teacher cannot be equated with the
post of Lady Supervisor who are supposed to supervise
the general administration and works of Anganwadi
workers. It has also been re-emphasized by Mr. Kumar
that the respondent JSSC or State cannot take benefit of
the language used in the amended qualifications as
mentioned in the Rules of 2023 which has been
published for the first time in the Official Gazette of
Jharkhand on 18.03.2026 during pendency of these
cases particularly after objections had been raised with
respect to the same.
25. Having heard Ld. Counsel for the rival parties at
length, this Court finds that neither in the Rules of 2019
(Annexure-1), nor in the amended Rules of 2021
(Annexure-1/1); nor even in the Advertisement No.
14/2023 it is stipulated that the candidate must have
Graduation with Honors or have studied in the concerned
subjects for any number of years or three years, thus the
impugned objections raised by the respondent JSSC as
contained in Annexure-6 (Series) to the writ petition and
21
2026:JHHC:15323
Annexure-S.A.-1 (Series) to the supplementary affidavit
filed by the petitioners and likewise for other petitioners
in other cases is not in accordance with law and
applicable Rules.
26. The respondents have sought to justify the
impugned objections as raised by them for rejecting the
qualifications of the petitioners or denying their
candidature by way of taking fresh grounds in the
Counter Affidavit but this Court is conscious about the
principles laid down in Mohinder Singh Gill vs Chief
Election Commissioner reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405
where the Hon’ble Apex Court had expressed its views in
paragraph 8 as under:
8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory
functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity
must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be
supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or
otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time
it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional
grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the
observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji [Commr. of Police,
Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, 1951 SCC 1088 : AIR 1952 SC 16] :
“Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory
authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently
given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was
in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public
authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect
the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and
must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in
the order itself.
Orders are not like wine becoming better as they grow older.”
24. Thus, when the Rules as well as the Advertisement
had been silent with respect to ‘Honors in a subject’ or
‘number of years of study in a subject’, the objections
raised by the respondents with respect to not accepting
the Graduation degree of the petitioners on the ground
that they have not studied the subject for three years
does not appear to be tenable and valid.
25. Even the respondents have raised fresh pleas in
22
2026:JHHC:15323
the Counter Affidavit and have sought to rely upon the
subsequently gazetted Rules of 2023 which has been
published in the Official Gazette on 18.03.2026 for
justifying the rejection of candidature of the petitioners
for the post of Lady Supervisor; this Court has also
examined the said grounds taken by the respondents
if same can be held to be proper for rejecting the
candidature and qualifications of the petitioners.
25. The respondents have relied upon the Amendment
Rules, 2023, which, according to them, altered the
eligibility criteria. The respondents have sought to take a
plea that by way of amendments in Rule 9 of the Original
Rules, the word “vishayon ke saath mahila snatak” was
amended to “vishayon mein mahila snatak; thus the
intention had been that the candidate must be having
Graduation with Honors or have studied three years in
the subject as mentioned in the eligibility conditions.
This Court does not find any such stipulation in the
Rules in which the word “Honors” or “three years study”
are present. This Court also finds that though the said
Amended Rules of 2023 were issued under Article 166 of
the Constitution of India; the same were not published in
the Official Gazette until 18.03.2026, i.e., after the
issuance of the advertisement and much after
commencement of the recruitment process.
26. The legal position with regard to enforceability of
legislation is well settled. Section 23 of the General
Clauses Act, 1897 provides for Provisions applicable to
making of rules or bye-laws after previous publication.
Section 23 (5) stipulates that the publication in the
Official Gazette of a rule after previous publication shall
be conclusive proof that the rule or bye-law has been
23
2026:JHHC:15323
duly made. For ready reference, section 23 of the General
Clauses Act, 1897 is being reproduced hereinbelow:
23. Provisions applicable to making of rules or bye-laws after
previous publication.
Where, by any 1 [Central Act] or Regulation, a power to make rules or
bye-laws is expressed to be given subject to the condition of the rules
or bye-laws being made after previous publication, then the following
provisions shall apply, namely:–
(1) the authority having power to make the rules or bye-laws shall,
before making them, publish a draft of the proposed rules or bye-laws
for the information of persons likely to be affected thereby;
(2) the publication shall be made in such manner as that authority
deems to be sufficient, or, if the condition with respect to previous
publication so requires, in such manner as the 5 [Government
concerned] prescribes;
(3) there shall be published with the draft a notice specifying a date on
or after which the draft will be taken into consideration;
(4) the authority having power to make the rules or bye-laws, and,
where the rules or bye-laws are to be made with the sanction,
approval or concurrence of another authority, that authority also, shall
consider any objection or suggestion which may be received by the
authority having power to make the rules or bye-laws from any person
with respect to the draft before the date so specified;
(5) the publication in the [Official Gazette] of a rule or bye-law
purporting to have been made in exercise of a power to make
rules or bye-laws after previous publication shall be conclusive
proof that the rule or bye-law has been duly made.
27. Furthermore, section 28 of the Bihar & Orissa
General Clauses Act, 1917 also stipulates that when
any rule is made under the Bihar & Orissa Act, it is
directed that any order, notification or other matter
shall be notified, or published be deemed to be duly
made if it is published in the Official Gazette, meaning
thereby; that a rule is deemed to be made only when it
is published in the official gazette. For ready reference,
section 28 of the Bihar & Orissa General Clauses Act,
1917 is being reproduced hereinbelow:
28. Publication of orders and notifications in the Official
Gazette.- Where in any Bihar and Orissa Act. [or Bihar Act] or in
any rule made under any such Act, it is directed that any order,
notification or other matter shall be notified, or published, such
notification or publication shall, unless the Act otherwise provides,
be deemed to be duly made if it is published in the [Official
Gazette].
28. This legal principle has on various occasions being
discussed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of
judgements including Harla vs State of Rajasthan
reported in 1951 SCC 936 wherein the issue raised was
24
2026:JHHC:15323
whether the mere passing of a resolution without
promulgation or publication in the gazette or other
means to make the Act known to the public, was
sufficient to make it a law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court at
Para 9 has held that:
“Natural justice requires that before a law can become
operative it must be promulgated or published. It must be
broadcast in some reasonable way so that all men may know what it
is, or at the very least, there must be some special rule or regulation or
customary channel by or through which such knowledge can be
acquired with the exercise of due and reasonable diligence. The
thought that a decision reached in a secret recesses chamber to which
the public have no access and to which even their accredited
representatives have no access and of which they can normally know
nothing, can nevertheless affect their lives………”
Emphasis Supplied
24. Similarly, in the case of B.K. Srinivasan & Ors.
vs State of Karnataka & Ors. reported in
(1987) 1 SCC 658, the Hon’ble Apex Court has
again at para 15 held that:
“It is therefore, necessary that subordinate legislation, in order to make
effect must be published or promulgated in some suitable manner,
whether such publication or promulgation is prescribed by the parent
statute or not. It will then take effect from the date of such publication
or promulgation. Whether the parent statute prescribes the mode of
publication or promulgation that mode must be followed. Where the
parent statute is silent, but the subordinate legislation itself prescribes
the mode of publication such a mode of publication, may be sufficient if
reasonable. If the subordinate legislation does not prescribe the mode
of publication or of it prescribes a plainly unrecognizable mode of
publication, it will take effect only when it is published through the
customarily recognizable official channel, namely the Official
Gazette……”
24. Again, in Gulf Goans Hotels Company Limited
vs Union of India & Ors. reported in (2014) 10
SCC 673 at Para 22 & 24 it has been held that:
“22.It is also essential that what is claimed to be a law must be
notified or made public in order to bind the citizen…..
24. So far as the mode of publication is concerned, such mode must be
prescribed in the Statute. In the event, the statute does not contain any
prescription and even under the subordinate legislation there is silence
in the matter, the legislation will take affect only when it is published
through customary official channel namely the official gazette.”
Emphasis Supplied
Further, in Viraj Impex Private Limited vs Union
of India & Anr reported in 2026 INSC 80, the Hon’ble
Apex Court at para 19 has held that:
25
2026:JHHC:15323
A Notification cannot operate in a fragmented manner. In law, it is
born only upon publication in the Official Gazette, and it is
from that date alone that rights may be curtailed or obligations
imposed. To hold otherwise, would permit unpublished delegated
legislation to burden citizens, a proposition expressly rejected by this
Court in long line of decisions.
Emphasis Supplied
31. In light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this
Court finds that the law is well settled that a Rule can
become operative only after publication in the official
gazette. In the present case the Rules of 2023 which is
being relied upon to justify the requirements as claimed
by the respondents, had been published in the official
gazette on 18.03.2026 after the recruitment process had
been advanced; the petitioners were even called for
document verification and upon denial of the candidature
had approached this Court way back in the year 2025
and few results had also been published.
Therefore, this Court is not ready to accept the
contentions of the respondents particularly when the
appointments are to be made on general supervisory
posts in the Child and Welfare Department. The eligibility
conditions as prescribed in the Rules of 2019 and even
the Amended Rules of 2021 very clearly provided that a
candidate should be a women having Graduation from a
recognized University with Sociology or Psychology or
Home Science and even if the word ‘with’ is treated to be
changed as ‘main’ no much difference can be found or at
least there is apparent ambiguity.
32. Havning regards to the aforesaid discussions, the
contentions of the respondents are not acceptable to this
Court for reasons firstly, that the applicable Rules i.e.
Rules of 2019 and Amended Rules of 2021 clearly
provided that a candidate has to be Graduate with any of
the subjects and there was no mention of Graduation
26
2026:JHHC:15323
with Honors or study in a subject for a particular number
of years and Secondly, that the Rules of 2023 got
published in the Official Gazette only on 18.03.2026,
thus word ‘main’ used in the advertisement cannot be
held to be justified to treat the petitioners as disqualified.
33. This Court is also of the view that the judgement
rendered by this Court in L.P.A. No. 489/2023, Gita
Kumari & Ors. vs. The State of Jharkhand is clearly
distinguishable because in the said judgement different
set of Rules concerning the post of Teacher was under
consideration and for appointment on the post of subject
teachers of Language, other streams, Mathematics /
Physics / Biology / Chemistry etc. different eligibility
conditions were prescribed may be to have specialized
teachers in the subjects.
34. Even if there had been ambiguity in the conditions,
the petitioners will succeed in view of the law of the land
and if this Court accepts the conditions brought in by the
respondents by way of the recently published/gazetted
Rules of 2023, this Court is reminded of the legal
position that rules of games cannot be changed after the
recruitment process has begun as has also been held in
the case of Tej Prakash Pathak vs Rajasthan High
Court reported in (2013) 4 SCC 540.
35. Although, the respondents in the present case have
argued that the Rules of 2023 were issued in the name of
the Governor under Article 166 of the Constitution of
India, this Court finds that in absence of publication in
the Official Gazette at the relevant time, the said rules
could not have been enforced against the petitioners. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that a
notification or rule becomes operative only upon its
27
2026:JHHC:15323
publication in the Official Gazette and cannot be given
retrospective effect so as to prejudice the rights of
candidates who have participated in an ongoing selection
process.
Consequently, the reliance placed by the
respondents upon the Amendment Rules, 2023 to reject
the candidature of the petitioners is wholly misconceived
and legally unsustainable.
36. Accordingly, it is held that the rejection of the
candidature of the petitioners for appointment to the post
of Lady Supervisor is arbitrary and unsustainable in law.
Further, reliance of the respondents on the
notification dated 29.03.2023 i.e. Amended Rules of 2023
which has been published in the official gazette on
18.03.2026; is also untenable in the eyes of law as
because the said amendment rules not having been
published in the official gazette before the initiation of
recruitment process could not have been made applicable
to the petitioners.
37. Even the action of the respondent JSSC in rejecting
the candidature of the petitioners at the stage of
document verification when the petitioners had already
participated and qualified on merit is impermissible as
because the process of document verification is only for
confirming the authenticity of the documents/credentials
already submitted by the candidates and not to impose
any additional qualification/criteria which was not part
of the Recruitment Rules and the Advertisement.
38. Accordingly, for all the above reasons, I hold that
the impugned rejection of the candidature of the
petitioners are bad and are hereby quashed and set aside
and the Respondent JSSC is directed to accept the
28
2026:JHHC:15323
candidature of the petitioners in accordance with the
Jharkhand Child Development Non-Gazetted Employees
(Lady Supervisor) Service Cadre (Appointment, Promotion
and Service Conditions) Rules, 2019 (Annexure-1) as
amended in 2021 (Annexure-1/1) and the Advertisement
No 14/2023 (Annexure-2) and since the petitioners have
already qualified on merit as would be evident from
Important Notice dated 27.05.2025 (Annexure-5 of the
writ petition), they should be given appointment to the
post of Lady Supervisor along with all consequential
benefits.
This entire exercise shall be completed within a
period of 10 weeks from the date of receipt/production of
copy of this order.
39. Accordingly, all the writ applications stand allowed.
Pending IAs, if any, are closed.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Dated:15/05/2026
Amardeep/
A.F.R
Uploaded on
22.05.2026
29
